Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Nobody responded, but I already stated Jesus had a seamless robe with was COSTLY ARRAY in that day.

How much did it cost relatively to other garments?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

Are you insensuating you are unkept unless you deck yourself with jewelry and costly apparel?

No, I insinuated what I said. If we are not to be beautiful outwardly by jewelry, then by the same token let's not beautify ourselves outwardly by other means. Be unkempt.

That opinion definitely goes against what Paul or Peter is advising. Of course you may not mean that at all. Its hard to tell anyone's tone on a forum I've learned.

Again I never said Jewelry was an unholy thing, our hearts are the unholy thing and it is what our hearts do wtih jewelry that makes it hard to maintain the attitude that Peter and Paul are stressing.

Well, why forbid it then, since the Word teaches this?:

Titus 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

Some DO need to be absent of jewelry due to their hearts. But not everyone.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by mfblume

No, I insinuated what I said. If we are not to be beautiful outwardly by jewelry, then by the same token let's not beautify ourselves outwardly by other means. Be unkempt.



Well, why forbid it then, since the Word teaches this?:

Titus 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

Some DO need to be absent of jewelry due to their hearts. But not everyone.

There is beauty in no jewelry and modesty. People have said pentecostal ladies are the most beautiful of all that are in the world. Why do they see it that way when they have no makeup, skirts to their ankles, not jewelry and no tank tops?

WHy didn't Peter and Paul say some women then?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

There is beauty in no jewelry and modesty. People have said pentecostal ladies are the most beautiful of all that are in the world.

You are not getting my point. I am saying that if we are humble by not beautifying ourselves with jewelry, then by the same token what about not beautifying ourselves by other means as well? Combing our hair beautifies us.

And personally, I do not think Pentecostal women without jewelry are most beautiful in the world. I have cringed at the appearance of many of them, personally. I saw grey hair and bland looks, and said my wife is not going to look like that! That's just me, but in no way do I share your opinion.

Why do they see it that way when they have no makeup, skirts to their ankles, not jewelry and no tank tops?

I do not see it that way. I do not condone tank tops, though.

WHy didn't Peter and Paul say some women then?

They did not say anything similar to what you are proposing to begin with. They said a woman should not think that allurements through her outward are what will win their lost husbands, and Paul said a woman should not think she is showing her Christian character by her clothes.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

How much did it cost relatively to other garments?

Costly enough for Clarke to say it was "costly".

Clarke said:

"the high priest had a long robe of a blue color, which hung down to the feet, and was put over all the rest." It is likely that this was the same with that upper garment which the soldiers divided among them, it being probably of a costly stuff. I may just add here, that I knew a woman who knit all kinds of clothes, even to the sleeves and button holes, without a seam; and have seen some of the garments which she made; that the thing is possible I have the fullest proof.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Costly enough for Clarke to say it was "costly".

Clarke said:

"the high priest had a long robe of a blue color, which hung down to the feet, and was put over all the rest." It is likely that this was the same with that upper garment which the soldiers divided among them, it being probably of a costly stuff. I may just add here, that I knew a woman who knit all kinds of clothes, even to the sleeves and button holes, without a seam; and have seen some of the garments which she made; that the thing is possible I have the fullest proof.

probably costly.. the garment of Jesus would have been costly anyway. Can you imagine how much people would have given to have the garment of the one who healed them?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

probably costly.. the garment of Jesus would have been costly anyway. Can you imagine how much people would have given to have the garment of the one who healed them?

You are really grasping. I have heard it preached all my life that the seamless garment was an expensive article of clothing. And common sense is what makes it "probably". Imagine the skill required to make it, to the extent that Clarke has to say it can be proved that ancients were able to do this. In other words, some thought it was too hard to make for people of that time. But to say these people crucifying the Lord wanted it since it was worn by one who healed people is contradictory! They would not have been fighting for his robe, but fighting for Him to be taken off the cross if they really believed He healed people.

It just goes to show how much effort people take to uphold a tradition. Gambling for his robe meant it was expensive.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You are not getting my point. I am saying that if we are humble by not beautifying ourselves with jewelry, then by the same token what about not beautifying ourselves by other means as well? Combing our hair beautifies us.
.

I guess if Paul and Peter included combing our hair with the NOT WITH statements of the scripture, then we would have an apostolic uncombed hair convention

Originally Posted by mfblume

And personally, I do not think Pentecostal women without jewelry are most beautiful in the world. I have cringed at the appearance of many of them, personally. I saw grey hair and bland looks, and said my wife is not going to look like that! That's just me, but in no way do I share your opinion.


I do not see it that way. I do not condone tank tops, though.
.

My point was why do many men say these things? Mostly its men who aren't in apostolic beliefs or not in church at all in any belief. The opposite might be said for apostolic young men. Some usually say they'd like to date a girl that looks like the world but marry one that dresses to holiness standards.

Originally Posted by mfblume

They did not say anything similar to what you are proposing to begin with. They said a woman should not think that allurements through her outward are what will win their lost husbands, and Paul said a woman should not think she is showing her Christian character by her clothes.

I've already posted several versions of the statements found in the scriptures. Most follow through with I don't want the woman to wear gold, or pearls, etc.

such as

9Likewise, I want (U)women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments,
10but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.

or
9Also [I desire] that women should adorn themselves modestly and appropriately and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with [elaborate] hair arrangement or gold or pearls or expensive clothing,

10But by doing good deeds (deeds in themselves good and for the good and advantage of those contacted by them), as befits women who profess reverential fear for and devotion to God.

It doesn't seem that they are stating to not comb your hair though.. but not make it elaborate

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You are really grasping. I have heard it preached all my life that the seamless garment was an expensive article of clothing. And common sense is what makes it "probably". Imagine the skill required to make it, to the extent that Clarke has to say it can be proved that ancients were able to do this. In other words, some thought it was too hard to make for people of that time. But to say these people crucifying the Lord wanted it since it was worn by one who healed people is contradictory! They would not have been fighting for his robe, but fighting for Him to be taken off the cross if they really believed He healed people.

It just goes to show how much effort people take to uphold a tradition. Gambling for his robe meant it was expensive.

I'm not trying to hold any tradition. You said Clarke agrees it was expensive and I said he stated probably was expensive. How does this apply to Paul and Peter's argument about women?

[mfblume]

In fact he wore a seamless robe, not a sackcloth with a rope tied around His waist. The seamless robe was a very expensive garment of the day. In fact, it was so valuable that even the Roman soldiers were wagering for it at the foot of the Cross. Whether the robe was a gift or He bought it doesn't matter. The robe was His, He owned it.

http://seektoknowhim.com/Get%20into%...tinkingdom.php

Jesus wore a seamless robe, which was a very costly garment (John 19: 23-24), so costly that the soldiers who were crucifying Him chose to gamble for it rather than to divide it between them, which was their usual custom.

http://www.james-dave.com/conservlib2.html